Try defaulting to JSON logging to measure performance impact#35332
Closed
Try defaulting to JSON logging to measure performance impact#35332
Conversation
Not expecting to merge, just run the performance benchmarks. Signed-off-by: Jesse Szwedko <jesse.szwedko@datadoghq.com>
github-actions
bot
added
team/agent-configuration
short review
Contributor
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision |
Contributor
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=59539752 --os-family=ubuntuNote: This applies to commit 4ceec91 |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 59c87a0 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +2.19 | [-0.63, +5.01] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | +0.66 | [+0.61, +0.71] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.10 | [-0.68, +0.88] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.01 | [-0.05, +0.07] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.30, +0.32] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.87, +0.88] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.02, +0.03] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.64, +0.62] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.86, +0.82] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.84, +0.79] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.71, +0.65] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.08 | [-0.14, -0.03] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.21 | [-0.29, -0.13] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.37 | [-0.84, +0.10] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.39 | [-1.20, +0.42] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.58 | [-0.72, -0.44] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.62 | [-1.38, +0.14] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 |
Explanation
Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%
Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:
- ✅ = significantly better comparison variant performance
- ❌ = significantly worse comparison variant performance
- ➖ = no significant change in performance
A regression test is an A/B test of target performance in a repeatable rig, where "performance" is measured as "comparison variant minus baseline variant" for an optimization goal (e.g., ingress throughput). Due to intrinsic variability in measuring that goal, we can only estimate its mean value for each experiment; we report uncertainty in that value as a 90.00% confidence interval denoted "Δ mean % CI".
For each experiment, we decide whether a change in performance is a "regression" -- a change worth investigating further -- if all of the following criteria are true:
-
Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.
-
Its 90.00% confidence interval "Δ mean % CI" does not contain zero, indicating that if our statistical model is accurate, there is at least a 90.00% chance there is a difference in performance between baseline and comparison variants.
-
Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".
CI Pass/Fail Decision
✅ Passed. All Quality Gates passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
Contributor
Static quality checks ✅Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
|
rahulkaukuntla
approved these changes
Mar 21, 2025
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Not expecting to merge, just run the performance benchmarks.
What does this PR do?
Changes the default to log JSON.
Motivation
Benchmarking performance impact.
Describe how you validated your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes